IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v276y2019i3p1034-1043.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Focus theory of choice and its application to resolving the St. Petersburg, Allais, and Ellsberg paradoxes and other anomalies

Author

Listed:
  • Guo, Peijun

Abstract

We present a decision theory which models and axiomatizes a decision-making procedure. This procedure involves two steps: in the first step, for each action, some specific event which can bring about a relatively high payoff with a relatively high probability or a relatively low payoff with a relatively high probability is selected as the positive or negative focus, respectively; in the second step, based on the foci of all actions, a decision maker chooses a most-preferred action. Our model handles decision making with risk or under ambiguity or under ignorance within a unified framework. Our model resolves several anomalies, including the St. Petersburg, Allais, and Ellsberg paradoxes, and violations of stochastic dominance.

Suggested Citation

  • Guo, Peijun, 2019. "Focus theory of choice and its application to resolving the St. Petersburg, Allais, and Ellsberg paradoxes and other anomalies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(3), pages 1034-1043.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:276:y:2019:i:3:p:1034-1043
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2019.01.019
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221719300219
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.01.019?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johanna Etner & Meglena Jeleva & Jean‐Marc Tallon, 2012. "Decision Theory Under Ambiguity," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 234-270, April.
    2. Marc Rieger & Mei Wang, 2006. "Cumulative prospect theory and the St. Petersburg paradox," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 28(3), pages 665-679, August.
    3. Tomasz Strzalecki, 2011. "Axiomatic Foundations of Multiplier Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 79(1), pages 47-73, January.
    4. Segal, Uzi, 1990. "Two-Stage Lotteries without the Reduction Axiom," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(2), pages 349-377, March.
    5. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    6. Segal, Uzi, 1987. "The Ellsberg Paradox and Risk Aversion: An Anticipated Utility Approach," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 28(1), pages 175-202, February.
    7. Villa, Sebastián & Castañeda, Jaime Andrés, 2018. "Transshipments in supply chains: A behavioral investigation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(2), pages 715-729.
    8. Li Chen & Wei Luo & Kevin Shang, 2017. "Measuring the Bullwhip Effect: Discrepancy and Alignment Between Information and Material Flows," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 36-51, February.
    9. Nicola Lacetera & Devin G. Pope & Justin R. Sydnor, 2012. "Heuristic Thinking and Limited Attention in the Car Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2206-2236, August.
    10. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2012. "Salience Theory of Choice Under Risk," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(3), pages 1243-1285.
    11. White, Leroy, 2016. "Behavioural operational research: Towards a framework for understanding behaviour in OR interventions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 827-841.
    12. Peijun Guo, 2010. "Private Real Estate Investment Analysis within a One-Shot Decision Framework," International Real Estate Review, Global Social Science Institute, vol. 13(3), pages 238-260.
    13. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy, 2005. "Back to the St. Petersburg Paradox?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(4), pages 677-678, April.
    14. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    15. , & ,, 2012. "Reason-based choice: a bargaining rationale for the attraction and compromise effects," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 7(1), January.
    16. Johanna Etner & Meglena Jeleva & Jean‐Marc Tallon, 2012. "Decision Theory Under Ambiguity," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 234-270, April.
    17. Dubois, Didier & Prade, Henri & Sabbadin, Regis, 2001. "Decision-theoretic foundations of qualitative possibility theory," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(3), pages 459-478, February.
    18. Franco, L. Alberto & Hämäläinen, Raimo P., 2016. "Behavioural operational research: Returning to the roots of the OR profession," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 791-795.
    19. Meghan R. Busse & Nicola Lacetera & Devin G. Pope & Jorge Silva-Risso & Justin R. Sydnor, 2013. "Estimating the Effect of Salience in Wholesale and Retail Car Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(3), pages 575-579, May.
    20. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    21. Gilboa, Itzhak, 1987. "Expected utility with purely subjective non-additive probabilities," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 65-88, February.
    22. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
    23. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    24. Maurice E. Schweitzer & Gérard P. Cachon, 2000. "Decision Bias in the Newsvendor Problem with a Known Demand Distribution: Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(3), pages 404-420, March.
    25. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2007. "Sequentially Rationalizable Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1824-1839, December.
    26. Becker, Kai Helge, 2016. "An outlook on behavioural OR – Three tasks, three pitfalls, one definition," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 806-815.
    27. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    28. Hau L. Lee & V. Padmanabhan & Seungjin Whang, 1997. "Information Distortion in a Supply Chain: The Bullwhip Effect," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(4), pages 546-558, April.
    29. Li Chen & Wei Luo & Kevin Shang, 2017. "Measuring the Bullwhip Effect: Discrepancy and Alignment Between Information and Material Flows," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 36-51, February.
    30. Brocklesby, John, 2016. "The what, the why and the how of behavioural operational research—An invitation to potential sceptics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 796-805.
    31. Xide Zhu & Peijun Guo, 2017. "Approaches to four types of bilevel programming problems with nonconvex nonsmooth lower level programs and their applications to newsvendor problems," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 86(2), pages 255-275, October.
    32. Guo, Peijun & Li, Yonggang, 2014. "Approaches to multistage one-shot decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 236(2), pages 612-623.
    33. Peijun Guo, 2010. "One-shot decision approach and its application to duopoly market," International Journal of Information and Decision Sciences, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(3), pages 213-232.
    34. Simon, Herbert A, 1979. "Rational Decision Making in Business Organizations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 493-513, September.
    35. Harsanyi, John C., 1975. "Can the Maximin Principle Serve as a Basis for Morality? A Critique of John Rawls's Theory," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 69(2), pages 594-606, June.
    36. Wang, Chao & Guo, Peijun, 2017. "Behavioral models for first-price sealed-bid auctions with the one-shot decision theory," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 261(3), pages 994-1000.
    37. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1988. "Similarity and decision-making under risk (is there a utility theory resolution to the Allais paradox?)," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 145-153, October.
    38. Tsogbadral Galaabaatar & Edi Karni, 2013. "Subjective Expected Utility With Incomplete Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 81(1), pages 255-284, January.
    39. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1986. "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 251-278, October.
    40. J. Solnick, Sara & Hemenway, David, 1998. "Is more always better?: A survey on positional concerns," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 373-383, November.
    41. Guo, Peijun & Ma, Xiuyan, 2014. "Newsvendor models for innovative products with one-shot decision theory," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(2), pages 523-536.
    42. Rachel Croson & Karen Donohue, 2006. "Behavioral Causes of the Bullwhip Effect and the Observed Value of Inventory Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(3), pages 323-336, March.
    43. Giang, Phan H. & Shenoy, Prakash P., 2005. "Two axiomatic approaches to decision making using possibility theory," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 162(2), pages 450-467, April.
    44. Faruk Gul & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 2014. "Expected Uncertain Utility Theory," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(1), pages 1-39, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xide Zhu & Zhiheng Hu & Guihua Lin & Weina Xu, 2023. "Strategy Analysis for Retailer-Leading Supply Chain under Buyback Contract with Focus Theory of Choice," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-25, January.
    2. Andrew J. Keith & Darryl K. Ahner, 2021. "A survey of decision making and optimization under uncertainty," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 300(2), pages 319-353, May.
    3. Konrad, Renata A. & Maass, Kayse Lee & Dimas, Geri L. & Trapp, Andrew C., 2023. "Perspectives on how to conduct responsible anti-human trafficking research in operations and analytics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 309(1), pages 319-329.
    4. Guo, Peijun, 2022. "Dynamic focus programming: A new approach to sequential decision problems under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 303(1), pages 328-336.
    5. Xide Zhu & Kevin W. Li & Peijun Guo, 2023. "A bilevel optimization model for the newsvendor problem with the focus theory of choice," 4OR, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 471-489, September.
    6. Xiuyan Ma, 2019. "Pricing to the Scenario: Price-Setting Newsvendor Models for Innovative Products," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(9), pages 1-15, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xide Zhu & Peijun Guo, 2020. "Bilevel programming approaches to production planning for multiple products with short life cycles," 4OR, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 151-175, June.
    2. Guo, Peijun, 2022. "Dynamic focus programming: A new approach to sequential decision problems under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 303(1), pages 328-336.
    3. Andrew J. Keith & Darryl K. Ahner, 2021. "A survey of decision making and optimization under uncertainty," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 300(2), pages 319-353, May.
    4. Karni, Edi & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2015. "Ambiguity and Nonexpected Utility," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    5. Dillenberger, David & Segal, Uzi, 2017. "Skewed noise," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 344-364.
    6. Adam Dominiak & Jean-Philippe Lefort, 2021. "Ambiguity and Probabilistic Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(7), pages 4310-4326, July.
    7. Amit Kothiyal & Vitalie Spinu & Peter Wakker, 2014. "An experimental test of prospect theory for predicting choice under ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 1-17, February.
    8. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2005. "Are Universal Preferences Possible? Calibration Results for Non-Expected Utility Theories," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 633, Boston College Department of Economics.
    9. Salvatore Greco & Fabio Rindone, 2014. "The bipolar Choquet integral representation," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(1), pages 1-29, June.
    10. Shaw, W. Douglass & Woodward, Richard T., 2008. "Why environmental and resource economists should care about non-expected utility models," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 66-89, January.
    11. Laurent Denant-Boemont & Olivier L’Haridon, 2013. "La rationalité à l'épreuve de l'économie comportementale," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(2), pages 35-89.
    12. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Horst Zank, 2023. "Source and rank-dependent utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 75(4), pages 949-981, May.
    13. Ali al-Nowaihi & Sanjit Dhami, 2016. "The Ellsberg paradox: A challenge to quantum decision theory?," Discussion Papers in Economics 16/08, Division of Economics, School of Business, University of Leicester.
    14. Xide Zhu & Kevin W. Li & Peijun Guo, 2023. "A bilevel optimization model for the newsvendor problem with the focus theory of choice," 4OR, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 471-489, September.
    15. Arthur E. Attema & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier L'Haridon, 2018. "Ambiguity preferences for health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(11), pages 1699-1716, November.
    16. Lewandowski, Michal, 2006. "Is Cumulative Prospect Theory a Serious Alternative for the Expected Utility Paradigm?," MPRA Paper 43271, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Fan Wang, 2022. "Rank-Dependent Utility Under Multiple Priors," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(11), pages 8166-8183, November.
    18. Riddel, Mary C. & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2006. "A Theoretically-Consistent Empirical Non-Expected Utility Model of Ambiguity: Nuclear Waste Mortality Risk and Yucca Mountain," Pre-Prints 23964, Texas A&M University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    19. Xiuyan Ma, 2019. "Pricing to the Scenario: Price-Setting Newsvendor Models for Innovative Products," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(9), pages 1-15, September.
    20. Evren, Özgür, 2019. "Recursive non-expected utility: Connecting ambiguity attitudes to risk preferences and the level of ambiguity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 285-307.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:276:y:2019:i:3:p:1034-1043. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.